Republicans such as Phil Gramm opposed Hillarycare out of principal in the early 1990s. No Republican legislator voted for the First Lady's socialized-medicine scheme. Now Republicans rush to copy her. Like Mitt Romney, who mandated universal coverage in Massachusetts, the GOP candidates for president on the whole accept as a starting point the idea that taxpayers should pay for the health-care costs of lower-income Americans. "[W]e can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens," John McCain, for example, contends.

It figures that the only medical doctor in the race for the presidency stands athwart the creeping statism on health care within the Republican Party. Congressman Ron Paul has a new ad on health care that rightfully indicts government as the cause, and not the solution, to America's health-care woes. "The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted," Dr. Paul notes in his campaign statement on health care. "Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration." Eliminating the health-care bureaucracy on small businesses, making all health care costs tax deductible, and allowing doctors to bargain collectively with insurance companies are a few of the ideas Congressman Paul proposes.

Ron Paul isn't such a throwback that one needs to go back to the 1950s to find Republicans airing free-market ideas on health care. In the 1990s--yeah, the decade before this one--Republicans unanimously opposed the bureaucratized mess that was the Clinton health plan. Even President Bush, Mr. Prescription Drug Giveaway, vetoed a federally-funded health program for poor children yesterday because it "moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction."

Too many in the party seem to think that a federal health-insurance policy covering everyone is a fait accompli. And since this is the case, their logic goes, it's best to make such a system as friendly to market concerns as possible. Ron Paul, loudly, rejects this and recognizes that the problems with federally-managed or federally-funded universal health care would be, as it is with veterans hospitals, systemic. In other words, no amount of tinkering would make a positive out of something so wholly negative.

If "conservatives" can't even conserve the ideas of conservatism that triumphed just a few short years ago, what makes them at all conservative?

Rothbard spoke wisely on this issue in his paper "Strategies for a Libertarian Victory". I believe it sheds light on the reason the Republicans have retreated so far, and I do not believe wholly political considerations are all that is afoot. To quote:

"In my "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty", I pointed out that the conservative, here and in Europe, is always a long run pessimist. The conservative believes that the inevitable march of history is against him:

Hence, the inevitable trend runs toward left-wing statism at home and communism abroad. It is this long run despair that accounts for the Conservative’s rather bi-zarre short run optimism; for since the long run is given up as hopeless, the Conservative feels that his only hope of success rests in the current moment. In foreign affairs, this point of view leads the Conservative to call for desperate showdowns with communism, for he feels that the longer he waits the worse things will inelectably become at home, it leads him to total concentration on the very next election, where he is always hoping for victory and never achieving it. The quintessence of the Practical Man, and beset by long run despair, the Conservative refuses to think or plan beyond the election of the day."

I didn't live in MA at the time that the state passed the mandated health coverage, so I can't claim full expertise in the matter, but wasn't the health-care bill a compromise worked out between Romney and the state legislature?? I think its a bit unfair to proscribe the entire "blame" on this on Romney, as if he's the dictator of the state of Massachusetts and can do whatever the heck he wants. I mean, lets say Ron Paul was governor of MA instead; there is no way he would be able to scrap the entire existing health care system of MA and make it completely privatized. The legislature wouldn't let him.

Now, Romney's not running away from it, nor should he if he's going to maintain his integrity. But I think too much responsibility is being put on a governor for what is ultimately the legislature's domain. Can't it be argued that this is the best Romney could do working with the legislature, since there are a whole lot of much worse alternatives that could have been adopted by the state.

I mean, isn't that why we all want Ron Paul for President??? So that the conversation can shift back to what can Congress do for us and not treat governors and Presidents like they are our own little demi-gods??

In fact, it was our bloated Senior Senator who put the final muscle on Romney and the legislature to git er' dun. Romney was complicit due to his office and standing in the Commonwealth but had to work within the confines set up by our resident socialists. And there are lots of them.

Dan's right. Romney is a politician and not necessarily a true dyed in the wool Republican. But he is a business man too and certainly not a social engineer.

So he didn't initiate the program and I doubt he would have let this go down without some arm twisting.

MRDJ,

The point Dan is making is more focused on Romney running on promoting his MA plan. You say that it would be a lack of integrity to "run away from it" but Dan's point is that it is a lack of conservate principles to be trumping it.

As for the Paul comment and presidents as not being demi-gods. I don't want Congress to be doing anything "for us" or at least only what the Constitution allows it to do. That is why I support Ron Paul. And far from acting as a demigod by failing to comprpmise w/ Congress I want him to veto basically every law they pass. That isn't being a demigod or a dictator, it is being a principled constitutionalist and conservative. It is also having integrity.

Jim Jeffords actually supported Hillary's health plan, and he was technically still a Republican at the time, though that doesn't affect your point very much.

I should clarify my "demigod" comment. Where I get frustrated with mostly liberals, but some conservatives like Mr. Flynn is the idea that Presidents and Governors have this ultimate power to do whatever they want if they actually wanted to. For example, Romney gets blamed for this health mandate plan because a "true conservative" never would have supportted it. The implication, at least the way I read it, is that Romney could have pushed a metaphorical button and privatized the entire health care system in MA, when thats not nearly the case. Perhaps, taking a devil's advocate position, Romney should be credited for getting as much free market solutions into the plan as he did in a deep blue state as MA.

Now you can argue that Romney should have taken an all or nothing position. I think as President, thats a reasonable statement, but as governor?? I'm not so sure. Governors should be alot more accountable to the people than the President is, and it may not be responsible for a governor to be extremely stubborn and do a "my way or the highway" position. I'm not sure, I can see it both ways, but I do not think its as clear cut as Flynn says it is.

By the way, I'm a Ron Paul guy, he's the only candidate I've donated money to, but I think Presidents and Governors have too much blame flung onto them in areas that are really the legislature's domain. Its like how too many people expect Presidents to create jobs, like they have any direct role in the process.

MRD, nobody is saying Romney could have completely privatized Massachusetts healthcare. But why did he actually come up with a socialist healthcare plan on his own and push it as part of his platform, personally?

Well, was this his creation, or was it a result of some compromise with the state legislature?? I don't know the answer, and I am curious as to which it was.

And its a bit unfair to call it a socialistic health care plan. Arguably, its as equally free market as the current system, which was that uninsured people could get free health care through the ER. Instead of using tax-payer money to provide health care to the uninsured, its using money to buy them insurance. Is that really any more "socialistic" than the previous system??

I understand it means that people who could afford insurance but chose not to because they're healthy now are forced to buy insurance. Thats fine, and a legitimate complaint, just as compulsory auto insurance is a legitimate complaint.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I haven't heard Romney call for his model of health care to be used nation-wide, all I have heard is him defending it for the state of MA. You can call that politicing if you want, but it is reasonable to advocate for one plan for one particular state and another different plan for the country, if there is to be a plan at all.

It was Romney's creation.

And yes, any true solution to health care in America will require that we end legal enforcement of the hippocratic oath.

Ben,
Would you elaborate?

Just to back up Ben, Romney claimed the plan as his own, he celebrated its passage, and early on in the presidential campaign touted it (even several NR writers cited its supposed free-market aspects as evidence of Romney's bona fides). Now that most conservatives realize just how bad the plan is, Romney is running away from it. Should he be nominated, he'll rely on it in the general.

Here's Romney praising Ted Kennedy in the celebration after his government-funded universal coverage plan was passed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM

Agreed: Governors, like presidents, aren't all powerful. But Romney claimed this plan as his own. He didn't veto it or push legislators to oppose it. He signed it and pushed legislators to support it. We can't hold Mitt responsible for all the bad things that happened in Massachusetts during his four years as governor. Can't we, at least, hold him responsible for the policies that he claimed responsibility for?

Thats fair Dan. But also in fairness to Romney, he may have realized this was the best plan he was going to get from the legislature and therfore pushed to get this form of healthcare rather than some other far more socialistic health care system. Remember, most liberals were not happy with the plan, and as far as I can read still aren't happy with it. Perhaps Romney SHOULD be proud when he says it was the right system for the state of MA, given how liberal the state is. Again, someone could theoretically advocate one type of plan for one state and an entirely different plan for the country, if one should be offered. I have not heard Romney yet say his MA plan should be adopted nation-wide.

I'm really not trying to make excuses for the man, I guess I'm just trying to provide some shades of grey into what has been a black and white discussion.